DCT

5:20-cv-00567

North Plate Semiconductor LLC v. ABB Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 5:20-cv-00567, E.D.N.C., 10/28/2020
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant ABB, Inc. being headquartered in the district, conducting substantial business in the district, and committing alleged acts of infringement there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Insulated Gate Bipolar Transistor (IGBT) devices infringe two patents related to semiconductor device structures that improve switching speed and reduce electrical noise.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns high-voltage power semiconductors, specifically IGBTs, which are fundamental components for efficient power conversion and control in a wide range of industrial, commercial, and consumer electronics.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with notice of infringement, including a draft complaint and preliminary infringement contentions, via a letter dated March 2, 2020. Subsequent discussions regarding a potential resolution allegedly occurred but did not result in an agreement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-09-28 '653 Patent Priority Date
2001-01-31 '641 Patent Priority Date
2003-09-09 '641 Patent Issue Date
2003-09-16 '653 Patent Issue Date
2020-03-02 Plaintiff's notice letter sent to Defendant
2020-10-28 Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 6,617,641 - "High Voltage Semiconductor Device Capable of Increasing a Switching Speed," Issued September 9, 2003

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes a problem in conventional "punch-through" IGBTs where, during turn-off, the drain current drops to zero too rapidly. This abrupt change causes the drain voltage to oscillate, generating undesirable electrical noise ('641 Patent, col. 2:15-21).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention introduces a "low concentration layer" between the device's drain layer and buffer layer ('641 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:37-40). This layer acts as a temporary reservoir for charge carriers, allowing them to flow out more gradually during turn-off. This slower decrease in current prevents the voltage oscillations and reduces noise, as illustrated by comparing the smooth turn-off curve in the patent's FIG. 6 with the oscillating curve of the prior art in FIG. 21 ('641 Patent, col. 5:12-27).
  • Technical Importance: The invention claims to solve a key trade-off in power electronics by enabling both faster switching speeds and reduced electrical noise, improving overall device performance and efficiency ('641 Patent, col. 2:22-25).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶22).
  • Claim 1 of the ’641 Patent recites the essential elements of a semiconductor device, including:
    • A stack of semiconductor layers: a drain layer, a buffer layer, a high resistance layer, a base layer, and a source layer, each with a specified conductivity type.
    • A gate electrode formed in the base layer with an interposed insulating film.
    • A "low concentration layer formed between the drain layer and the buffer layer."
    • A further requirement that the drain layer is an "impurity diffusion layer" and that the "total amount of impurities contained in the drain layer is at most 5x10¹⁴ cm⁻²."

U.S. Patent No. 6,620,653 - "Semiconductor Device and Method of Manufacturing the Same," Issued September 16, 2003

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the persistent trade-off between a power device's turn-off characteristics and its on-state characteristics; improving one often degrades the other. It also notes the high manufacturing cost associated with conventional IGBTs that rely on specialized epitaxial substrates ('653 Patent, col. 1:55-63).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a specific IGBT structure and, critically, a mathematical design rule: "5≥bDPQP/bDNQN" ('653 Patent, col. 15:61-63). This formula relates the "dose amount" (Q) and "diffusion coefficient" (bD) of impurities in the collector (P) and buffer (N) layers. The patent states this ratio corresponds to the current amplification factor (hFE), and by keeping it at five or less, a device can achieve a very fast fall time (e.g., under 200 nanoseconds) without compromising other performance metrics ('653 Patent, col. 12:45-58; col. 13:9-18).
  • Technical Importance: This design rule provides a method for engineering high-performance IGBTs that overcome prior art trade-offs, enabling faster and more efficient power switching ('653 Patent, col. 14:45-51).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 10 and dependent Claim 14 (Compl. ¶39).
  • Claim 10 of the ’653 Patent recites the essential elements of a semiconductor device, including:
    • A specific stack of semiconductor layers including a collector layer, a buffer layer, and first and second base layers.
    • A gate electrode positioned above the second base layer.
    • A controlling mathematical condition: "wherein the following condition is satisfied: 5≥bDPQP/bDNQN".

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies "Defendant IGBT devices with SPT* and SPT** structure," providing a detailed list of dozens of specific product numbers (Compl. ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused products are described as "soft punch-through (SPT) insulated gate bipolar transistor (IGBT) devices" (Compl. ¶24). The complaint alleges these are fundamental components marketed for use in a wide array of high-power applications, including variable speed drives, power supplies, renewable energy systems, and locomotives (Compl. ¶33). The products are marketed as featuring "the highest switching performance, ruggedness and reliability" and "fast switching" capabilities (Compl. ¶31; Ex. C at 7).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'641 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a drain layer... a buffer layer... a high resistance layer... a base layer... a source layer... The complaint maps these claimed layers to the corresponding physical layers of a standard punch-through IGBT, which it alleges are present in the Accused Products (Compl. p. 8, IGBT Tutorial). ¶23-26 col. 3:42-46
a gate electrode formed in the base layer with an insulating film interposed therebetween The Accused Products are identified as IGBTs ("Insulated Gate Bipolar Transistors"), which the complaint asserts necessarily contain the claimed insulated gate electrode structure. ¶27 col. 3:47-50
a low concentration layer formed between the drain layer and the buffer layer The complaint alleges this layer is present based on its function. It presents a graph from Defendant's materials showing the Accused Product's voltage does not oscillate at turn-off, and argues this effect is the result of the claimed layer. The provided visual shows this lack of oscillation in the accused product (Compl. ¶30). ¶28-30 col. 3:37-40
wherein the drain layer is an impurity diffusion layer, and a total amount of impurities...is at most 5x10¹⁴ cm⁻² The complaint alleges this impurity limitation is met because the Accused Products are marketed for "high switching speeds," and the patent teaches that reducing impurities to this level increases switching speed. ¶31 col. 9:19-22
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The complaint acknowledges that technical literature for IGBTs may refer to the p+ injecting layer as a "collector layer" rather than a "drain layer" (Compl. ¶25). This raises the question: can the term "drain layer" as defined and used in the ’641 Patent be properly construed to encompass the structure referred to as the "collector layer" in the Accused Products and their associated documentation?
    • Technical Questions: The infringement allegations for the "low concentration layer" and the impurity limitation rely on inferential evidence—observing a performance characteristic (no oscillation, high speed) and arguing it proves the existence of the underlying claimed structure. This raises a key evidentiary question: does the observed high-performance behavior of the Accused Products necessarily prove the presence of the specific structures claimed in the patent, or could these characteristics be achieved through alternative, non-infringing technical means?

'653 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 10) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a first...base layer; a...collector layer; a...buffer layer; a...second base layer; a...emitter layer; and a gate electrode... The complaint maps these claimed layers to the corresponding physical layers of a standard punch-through IGBT, which it alleges are present in the Accused Products based on an annotated patent figure and a tutorial diagram (Compl. p. 15-16). ¶40 col. 9:54-10:12
wherein the following condition is satisfied: 5≥bDP*QP/bDN*QN The complaint alleges this mathematical condition is met by citing performance data. It argues that because the patent equates this condition with achieving fast fall times (≤ 200 ns), and lists numerous Accused Products with fall times meeting this criterion, the products must therefore satisfy the claimed mathematical limitation. ¶41 col. 13:9-18
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: The allegation for the mathematical limitation is based entirely on product performance. A central dispute will likely be whether demonstrating a fast "fall time" is sufficient proof that the device satisfies the specific formula "5≥bDPQP/bDNQN". The analysis may require establishing whether this performance is uniquely and necessarily tied to the claimed formula or could result from other design choices.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the '641 Patent:

  • The Term: "low concentration layer formed between the drain layer and the buffer layer"
  • Context and Importance: This term describes the central inventive concept. The complaint's infringement theory for this element is based on observing the effect of the layer (suppressed voltage oscillation) rather than its physical presence. The construction of this term will determine what level of proof is required to show infringement.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent repeatedly describes the function of this layer as preventing oscillation and allowing drain current to decrease gradually ('641 Patent, col. 5:12-27). A plaintiff could argue that any structure located between the drain and buffer layers that achieves this specific function meets the claim limitation.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific physical embodiments with exemplary thicknesses (e.g., "0.5 µm to 30 µm") and impurity concentrations (e.g., "1x10¹⁶ cm⁻³") ('641 Patent, col. 3:62-64). A defendant may argue that the term is limited to structures having these or similar physical properties, not merely any structure that achieves the desired effect.

For the '653 Patent:

  • The Term: "wherein the following condition is satisfied: 5≥bDPQP/bDNQN"
  • Context and Importance: This limitation is the core of Claim 10 and is not a simple physical structure but a mathematical relationship between physical properties. Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement cannot be determined by simple inspection; it requires complex characterization and calculation, making the methodology for that calculation a central point of dispute.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may argue that since the patent teaches this condition results in a fall time of "near 200 nano seconds or shorter" ('653 Patent, col. 12:45-58), any device exhibiting this performance characteristic presumptively meets the condition, shifting the burden to the defendant to prove otherwise.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent provides explicit definitions for the variables: QP and QN are "dose amount" and bDP and bDN are "average of a diffusion coefficient" for their respective layers ('653 Patent, col. 13:9-18). The patent also provides a methodology for calculating these values from physical profiles (see FIG. 27). A defendant will likely argue that infringement can only be proven by physically measuring the device's impurity profiles and performing the calculation as taught in the patent, not by inferring it from performance data.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement. It asserts that Defendant provides U.S. distributors and customers with datasheets, application notes, and other technical collateral that instruct and encourage them to incorporate the Accused Products into infringing systems like power supplies and variable speed drives (Compl. ¶32-33, ¶42-43).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on pre-suit knowledge. It states that Defendant was put on notice of the patents and its alleged infringement by a letter dated March 2, 2020, which included a draft complaint and preliminary infringement contentions, and that Defendant continued its infringing conduct despite this notice (Compl. ¶18).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  • A central issue will be one of evidentiary proof versus inference: The complaint repeatedly relies on high-level product performance data (e.g., fast switching speed, no voltage oscillation) to allege infringement of specific underlying structural and mathematical claim limitations. A key question for the court will be whether such circumstantial evidence is sufficient to meet the preponderance of the evidence standard, or if direct physical proof from reverse engineering and device characterization will be required to show that the accused products actually contain the "low concentration layer" of the '641 patent or satisfy the "hFE ≤ 5" condition of the '653 patent.
  • The case may also turn on a question of definitional scope: The infringement theory for the ’641 patent requires construing the claimed term "drain layer" to read on the "collector layer" of a standard IGBT. The outcome of this construction could be dispositive, depending on whether the court finds the patent's specification supports a broader, functional definition or a narrower, more literal one based on conventional terminology.